Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

I'm in the UK, so that doesn't work for me

 

What were Jesus' last words on the cross?

Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 say that Jesus cried with a loud voice: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Luke 23:46 says that Jesus' final words were: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." John 19:30 tells us that the last statement of the dying Jesus was: "It is finished."

Why are there 3 different statements in the bible? (seeing as it's God-inspired and perfect in every way... and that obviously there was only ONE last statement Jesus could have made...)

 

How come nobody answered my questions. For the person who tried. Try watching "Walking with pre-historic beasts" Its on the discovery channel. Check times on their website.

Its a very good show not only about human origins but, about what lived here after the dinosaurs.

Now I can see some people thinking I don't have to watch this "I know what happened". Come on and be a little open minded, you might learn something.

I'm trying to learn about your religeons but, with answers like "neanderthals were just the "retarded" people." Come on, how come there were so many retards for over 100,000 years.

Answers like that make your religeous beliefs laughable. No disrespect but, come on.

 

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html is indeed an excellent and very comprehensive list. However, before I look to those, I'd like to post the short list of contradictions which I searched out at the humanist.net site.

One reason that Humanists consider the Bible to be an unreliable authority is that it contains a multitude of contradictions.  Logically, if two statements contradict each other, at least one of them must be false.  Because numerous Bible verses flatly contradict other verses, it follows that the Bible has many false statements and is not infallible.

Examples of Old Testament Contradictions

The contradictions start in the opening two chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent accounts of the creation are propounded.  Genesis chapter 1 states that the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals.  But Genesis chapter 2 says that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Additionally, Genesis chapter 1 tells of six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the "day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."  Chapter 1 asserts that the fruit trees were created before man, while chapter 2 indicates that those trees were made after man.  Genesis 1:20 states that the fowl were created out of the waters; nevertheless, Genesis 2:19 alleges that they were formed out of the ground.  Genesis 1:2-3 avers that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 reports that the sun, moon and stars were not made until the fourth day.

Contradictions also abound in the biblical account of a worldwide flood.  Genesis 6:19-22 says that God ordered Noah to bring "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark."  Genesis 7:2-3 states, however, that the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.

Genesis 7:17 relates that the flood lasted forty days, whereas Genesis 8:3 tells us it lasted one hundred and fifty days.  Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month.  But the very next verse asserts that the mountaintops could not even be seen until the tenth month.  Genesis 8:13 states that the earth was dry on the first day of the first month; contrariwise, Genesis 8:14 reports that the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

The Old Testament contains a significant contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and God's subsequent punishment of the Israelites.  According to the tale, God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed seventy thousand men.  At II Samuel 24:1, the Lord is said to be the one who caused David to take the census.  But an attempt was made later, at I Chronicles 21:1, to expunge God's record on this matter by claiming that Satan incited the census.

The Old Testament is further contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him.  According to Jeremiah 7:22, God denied that he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices.  In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses in the Pentateuch clearly depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.

Examples of New Testament Contradictions

Turning to the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogy of Jesus given in the first Chapter of Matthew and the genealogy contained in the third chapter of Luke.  Both genealogies list Jesus' father as being Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost), but Matthew states that the name of Joseph's father was Jacob, while Luke identifies him as Heli.  Matthew reports that there were twenty-six generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke claims

 

First off, sorry I got Geist, Estelita and Womberty mixed up on my last reply.

But a very good question from Epic:

What were Jesus' last words on the cross?

Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 say that Jesus cried with a loud voice: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Luke 23:46 says that Jesus' final words were: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." John 19:30 tells us that the last statement of the dying Jesus was: "It is finished."

Why are there 3 different statements in the bible? (seeing as it's God-inspired and perfect in every way... and that obviously there was only ONE last statement Jesus could have made...)

Excellent question!

The way I look at it is this: there's four gospels - and each of them presents a different perspective of Jesus although their all true (eg - Matthew emphasises Jesus as the Jewish King and Messiah; Mark: Jesus as a suffering servant; Luke: Jesus as a perfect example of living a godly life; and John: Jesus as the divine Son of God).

So all the writers will mention things that are pertinent to their point - in some cases they overlap, in others they are unique to that particular gospel. But when you put them together, they form a complete picture.

I believe that that's what we have in your example. Different points are mentioned that can be put together for the "whole" story.

Matthew 27:46-50: About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah." Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him." And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

From this passage, there's the whole sponge and vingegar thing after Jesus speaks, during which he could have said any number of words. And as you pointed out, Matthew and Mark's accounts are pretty much the same.

In Matthew's account it says that Jesus cried out again in a loud voice before he died. Luke tells us what Jesus actually cried out:

Luke 23:46: Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

And I believe that his words in John's gospel are what he said with the last dying breath that Luke refers to - it's only three words after all.

That's my take on it all anyway. There's actually loads of examples in the gospels of accounts that are incomplete in any of them, but when you put them together, you get the full picture.

For example, check this out:

Matthew 26:67-68: Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

Mark 14:65: Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.

Luke 22:64: They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"

Only together does this make sense - They blindfolded him, beat him, and demanded "Prophesy! Prophecy to us, Christ. Who hit you!" Only Luke mentions the blindfold, but it makes sense for it to have been there in Matthew because they're asking "Who hit you". Hope this answers your question.


Sorry DesertJedi that you didn't get a reply you were happy with. I really wanted this thread to deal with supposed contradictions within the biblical text itself. But there's plenty of Creations vs Evolution type discussions in this forum, so fear not.

 

DarksideSpirit, I haven't had a chance to read your post yet, but I should reply to it tomorrow. Long posts like that will take more time for me to answer. I want to answer all the points people make as fully as I can, and I've done that so far. In future, if you could post a couple at a time, it would help me out. If I get too overwhelmed I'll have to lock the thread.

 

Yes, I understand what an overwhelming task you have brought upon yourself. I'm not expecting a particularly quick answer, but it's easiest (I thought anyway) to post that list all at once and then you can deal with each one (if you can ) as and when it takes your fancy.

One thing: even if the Bible is self-consistent, it is not necessarily reliable (self-consistency is a fundamental test, not evidence of correctness). However, Moff_Monkey has enough on his plate, and the dubious origins of the Gospels etc deserve their own thread.

For the record, it's not possible to close a thread once the editing time has expired. Even if you could, locking this would be seen as an admission of defeat

 

"EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbour

Good question, but I bet the Israelites didn't mind But seriously, there's things that God prohibits on a personal level (eg "do not commit muder") that appear to be allowed on a national level. In the book of Joshua through to 2 Chronicles we see God telling his people to wipe out their enemies (even though he's said don't kill in the 10 Commandments). In some of these cases he allowed his people to keep what belonged to those they destroyed. It's like in the US, some states have the death penalty even though murder is illegal. Personal laws are different to national laws." - Thanks for answering, I'm sure I'll think of more. However, I don't but it. If God is the father of all humanity then why would he allow one "son" to do this to another? Nation or no nation he is the father is he not? Even on a tribal level, why would any fathe giver permission for such "distructive" acts?

I would argue that the over the years through mistranslation and corrupt priests the bible ahs had an edit or two.

 

1. In the fourth chapter of Genesis, after Cain kills Abel, he goes and marries someone and makes babies. Unless I'm wrong, there was no one else to marry, so what gives?

It says Adam and Eve were the first, not the only.

 

Answers like that make your religeous beliefs laughable. No disrespect but, come on.

Couldn't you tell I was laughing? Or, at least, trying to project a somewhat sarcastic mood.

When I do this in person, it tends to piss off the people who actually believe... since I know most of the standard answers, but don't actually believe them myself.

And, as a side note, my mother is pretty psycho. I never said the retarded neanderthal was the standard belief. (I don't know what the standard answer would be - anyone care to contribute?)

 

Also your questions about Satan's origin isn't a contradiction

Oh, come on, you didn't even try to answer that one!

Let me try to boil it down to the basic point:

God created a being that became evil. How did that happen?



EDIT: trying to get the bold/italics right...

 

Satan's origins are totally beside the point of this thread - I myself don't see that particular matter as a Biblical contradiction. However, the Bible does state that God created evil IIRC.

 

1] The bits that weren't there in the earlier manuscipts were added later. If you go for this, bear in mind that not one single doctrine hangs on any of these verses.

*sigh* ... I'm actually not disputing the KJV, but rather pointing out that it has been changed in the later revisions, such as the NIV. Certain verses were ommitted, such as Acts 8:37:

In the previous verse, the Ethiopian eunuch had asked Philip what he needed to be baptized. In the KJV, verse 37 says:

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

In the NIV, it simply skips that verse and goes straight to verse 38, where Philip goes ahead and baptizes the eunuch.

Why was this done? Was it too hard to translate into modern-day English?

No; according to the people who often bring up this point, this omission was made to allow for infant baptism.

For fun, look up the passage on http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible? under both KJV and NIV.

So, yes, I would have to say the Bible has been edited since the KJV.

And so it does make sense that it could have been edited before as well, but I've got nothing to back that up.

 

Satan's origins are totally beside the point of this thread - I myself don't see that particular matter as a Biblical contradiction.

Let me try to clarify the contradiction:

1. God is all good - or am I assuming too much?
2. God is all powerful, and controls everything that ever happens.
3. God created everything.

How do you reconcile that with a created being who turns against God and becomes evil?

 

I'm going to assume that you are, or were, a Methodist? Just a wild guess.

Nope, sorry, wrong answer. The Methodists I've known were much more lenient/tolerant than my family's religion. Methodists were even allowed to dance! (hint)

Care to guess again?

 

"Couldn't you tell I was laughing? Or, at least, trying to project a somewhat sarcastic mood"

I see, makes sense. I thought you were crazy!

Are you a mormon?

 

I thought you were crazy!

I am crazy. Try spending 18+ years in a fundamentalist religion and see if you don't come out of it a little mentally unbalanced.


Are you a mormon?

Nope, wrong again.


EDIT: took out something after re-thinking it. I was thinking Amish for some reason.

 

Womberty- Baptist?

As to God creating Satan, it is important to understand the definition of 'evil'. Evil is anything that is not like God. Anytime something is done that is not of God, that is evil. So with that in mind, did God create evil? No. He gave us a choice to do what he wants or not. Evil exists because God created the choice to do good. Satan is evil not because God created an evil being, but because he chose to not obey.

 

Darkside_Spirit

I answered most of those contradictions in another thread. Would you like me to dig it up to save G_M_M some work?


womberty
Certain verses were ommitted, such as Acts 8:37

Interesting... I never knew that before. However, if you look, there is a little footnote that says "Some late manuscripts: [37]Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may"... It just basically goes on to quote the 8:37 from KJV. Of course, it's entirely plausible and even probable that there are parts of the book that are omitted from translation to translation. However, realize that Christianity doesn't exactly hang on that one verse.

And I think Palpazzar pretty much answered your objection on the origin of Satan.

 

However, realize that Christianity doesn't exactly hang on that one verse.

No, I realize that. The point to be made was that things were ommitted, and possibly to change the meaning of the passage. Sure, they include it in a footnote, but it's not considered part of the normal reading, now is it?

 

I don't understand how that one verse changes the meaning of anything. Do you have an example that does?

 

Womberty- Baptist?

I said be specific!

 

Southern Baptist perhaps?

 

If you're interested in the origin of satan, you may want to read "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels. Fascinating stuff, stuff you don't hear about in church.

 

I don't understand how that one verse changes the meaning of anything. Do you have an example that does?

That was the example.

Acts 8:36 : The eunuch asks Philip whether he can be baptized.

Acts 8:38 : Philip baptizes the eunuch.


The "missing" verse, Acts 8:37, reads:

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."


That verse establishes the requirement that a person must be a believer before receiving baptism. In the Baptist church, a public confession of faith is required before baptism is administered.

The Baptists who use the KJV claim that the verse was ommitted to allow for infant baptism, where it is obvious that the child is incapable of belief.